Home

CALL TO ORDERThe meeting of the Rogers Planning Commission was held on November 19, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. was called to order with Commissioners Martin, Meadows, Denker, Knapp, Burr, Terhaar, Ende Swanson and Busch were present.

CONSENT AGENDA*A. Approval of the October 15, 2013 Planning Commission MinutesCommissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to approve the October 15, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes with the correction on page 3 as discussed tonight.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARINGSA. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by 1st National Bank at Diamond Pointe of Rogers Located at 13785 Rogers Drive for the Following Requests:• Rezoning from B-2, Commercial Business to Planned Unit Development• Approval of Final Development PlansCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Previous seen as a PUD amendment, discovered that there never was a PUD for this project• Previously received site plan approval to allow 2 buildings on this lot• Asking tonight to rezone property from B-2 to a PUD and also to approve the final development plans• Bank same location, same size, the only thing that they have changed now are the building materials• Reviewed the proposed materials and previous materials and design• Proposed building signage slightly over the 80 sq.ft. that is allowed• Small monument sign proposed – suggesting that they add to the small existing monument sign• Requesting a PUD approval. With a PUD you give and take with the developer to give them something and they give something to the city• Not sure what they are doing here as there is no benefit for the City.• Staff is suggesting that the signage be reduced to match what is there now, there be no additional monument sign and change building materials up a bit to add some of the stamped brick on the side and the bottom

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:Ken Piper, Tanek Architects, representing the applicant: We were here in June and had every intention based on the approval to move forward with what we had. After quite a bit of due diligence, and then some more input from the bank, that we needed to go in a different direction. We have taken some time to do that. It was our understanding that when we were here in June that this was part of an overall PUD. One thing I want to mention is that the sign that we are looking to do was part of the original site plan approval from 2006-2007. So from our standpoint, we were just looking back at that and wanted to have what was approved as part of the project. In terms of the site plan, we still have the same program there. This building is much more simplified – four different colors of stucco. Looked at introducing the stamped concrete skirt at the bottom. Proposing to not change the material, but to change the color. We believe that the signage (wall) is under the 80 sq.ft. that is allowed. The tower that was shown on the previous plans was a non-functional tower. Based on the location on Rogers Drive this is a very visible building.Commissioner Denker inquired about where the monument sign was shown on the previous plans.Mr. Piper Yes, it would have been on the site plan.Commissioner Martin stated that for us to consider this we would have had to have a sign plan or package submitted for review and approval. We did not have a signage plan in place if you remember the discussion from the last time. That is what we would have had to consider the overall signage for this property.Mr. Piper: We certainly did not have a signage plan with our submittal because at that time it was an amendment to a P.U.D. and we would go by the signage code. However, the monument sign was mentioned because that was part of the previous approval. I do recall mentioning that at the May or June meeting because that was part of the 2006-2007 approval and that we were looking to utilize that.Commissioner Swanson had a question that Mr. Piper mentioned that this was a very visual area. The bank is building the same bank, the same size, but are using cheaper materials and yet you want more signage. What is the city going to get out of this? What is the tradeoff here?Mr. Piper: I don't believe that we are really asking for more signage. As I mentioned, in our previous submittal, we did not submit a signage package with that because we just assumed that we would go by Section 113.4 of what is allowed. In terms of that we are not asking for more signage.Planner Cartney stated that there are two freestanding signs for this PUD site. One is on the east side and one is on the west side. So the sign in question is the additional freestanding sign and we have the wall signage. This is something that we need to work out.Mr. Piper: Commissioner, again, in terms to the signage for the building we have no issues in conforming to the signage ordinance.Planner Cartney stated that in regards to the building signage you are okay to stay at the 80 sq.ft., it's the freestanding sign that needs to be discussed.Mr. Piper: Again going back to the freestanding signage location here is there any credence to the fact that the 2006-2007 site plan that was submitted and approved by the City would have in fact had this sign here.Planner Cartney stated that is something she could look into. Again, this wasn't formerly approved as a PUD. The site plan was approved for the building that is built and it was approved for the second building. When the site plan was approved there was not a signage plan approved at that time. If this is something that the owner has and would share with us that would be great. I can certainly look through the files and see if I can find something that was approved. The 80 sq.ft. of wall signage is what is allowed by ordinance.Mr. Piper: If I may just express the applicant's wishes is to have that freestanding sign there and if we could maybe look into that to see if it was part of that and to have that as part of your consideration to allow the applicant to have that.Commissioner Martin inquired why the bank building can't resemble the existing building that is located there so it looks like a unit. So the entire PUD fits together.Mr. Piper: The proposed building has a cleaner look this way rather than having the stamped concrete along the base of the building. We feel it looks better this way. The center is a much larger building than this. We have tried to give this building a little more form than the other one.Commissioner Martin commented that there are not any awnings or anything else proposed on this building to try to pull it together with the other building.Mr. Piper: Again it starts to become ornate in that sense.

Commissioner Knapp moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

The Planning Commission discussed the following:• Not in favor of the additional monument sign unless it was previously agreed to• Originally this was approved as a site plan not a PUD.• Now being treated as a PUD you can approve without the freestanding sign if you want to• Research the previous approvals and table this item• PUD is to demonstrate why it is in the public's best interest• There was not a signage plan agreement that was with the May approval• Building materials/color

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded the motion to recommend approval of the rezoning of the property from B-2 Highway Overlay District to Planned Unit Development.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Swanson seconded the motion to recommend approval of a final development plan for Diamond Pointe of Rogers, with 80 sq. ft. of building signage and no additional freestanding sign subject to the following conditions:1. A Planned Unit Development Agreement must be executed and recorded.2. The building materials are modified to add stamped brick on the bottom to be consistent with the existing shopping center.

There was further discussion relating to the following:• Economics involved in requiring the stamped brick• Requirements of a PUD is that they bring a higher standard that benefits their site and the neighboring properties and also is beneficial to the general public

Commissioner Meadows offered an amendment to the existing motion to remove condition #2.

Commissioner Martin accepted Commissioner Meadows amendment, Commissioner Denker seconded the motion to recommend approval of a final development for Diamond Pointe of Rogers, with 80 sq.ft. of building signage and no additional freestanding sign subject to the following condition:1. A Planned Unit Development Agreement must be executed and recorded.

B. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Jeff and Jacquie Manick for a Variance to Allow an Accessory Building in the Front Yard, Located at 25895 Tucker RoadCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Property is zoned RE-5 but it is only a 2.6 acre parcel• Mistakenly approved in front yard with a 99 ft. front yard setback• When applicant wanted to relocate the accessory structure it was then realized that it could not be in the front yard as there was not enough acreage• Property has multiple drainage and utility easements along with a wetland• Variance is required to have an accessory building located within the front yard• Moved from original location due to grading issues

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

The following comments were registered:Jacquie Manick, 25895 Tucker Road: Had no idea that you couldn't have a shed in the front yard. We had already broken ground on our home when we decided to move our shed and we cannot change things where they are now. This is a nice location for us. A neighbor has a shed in their front yard so I'm not sure what the zoning is there. It's a nice building, it will match our house.Commissioner Denker asked if the pictures in the packet were of their house and accessory building.Jacquie Manick stated that those were of their previous house they just sold. This will be similar with stucco and stone to tie into the house and fully landscaped.Commissioner Martin inquired if they had already started the construction of the house.Jacquie Manick: Yes, when our excavator said we would have to bring in quite a bit of fill in order to get our yard to grade out to have the shed there. It would drastically change the topography of our site.

Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Knapp seconded a motion to close the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

The Planning Commission discussed the following:• What is the practical difficulty that allows us to grant this variance• The entire lot almost is encompassed with drainage and utility easements and wetland• Can't put in the rear due to the buffer from the wetland and cannot get access to it• Culvert is required to gain access to the accessory building

Commissioner Martin moved, Commissioner Ende seconded the motion to recommend approval of the variance for the property located at 25895 Tucker Rd. to construct an accessory structure as indicated on the certificate of survey dated Oct. 29, 2013, finding that shape and topographical nature of property creates a practical difficulty that by moving the shed here will alleviate with the condition:

1. Any work within drainage and utility easements needs to be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

C. Public Hearing to Amend the Kennel License and OrdinanceCity Planner Cartney provided the background information commenting on the following:• Council passed an ordinance this year to add commercial kennels as a conditional use in the R-2, RE-5 and Ag districts• Residential kennels were not listed as permitted uses or conditional uses in any of theR-2, RE-5 or Ag districts• Intent was to add commercial kennel as a conditional use not to eliminate residential kennels• Main business districts do not allow commercial kennels at all and this is something that I will be proposing in this ordinance• Kennels, dog grooming business, would be a home occupation within the residential district• Remove commercial kennels out of all residential districts

There was a brief discussion by the Planning Commission relating to:• Adding the residential kennel as a permitted use into all residential districts and remove commercial kennels out of all residential districts• Private kennel was changed to residential in all residential zones• Remove commercial kennels out of all residential districts and add it as a conditional use in the B-1, B-2 and L-I districts• Bring back to next meeting with all changes for final review

Chairman Denker opened the meeting for public comment.

There were no comments registered.

Commissioner Knapp moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to continue the public hearing.

On the vote, all members voted AYE. Motion carried.

ITEMS RELATING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERSHIP:A. Commission Membership Interviews for 2014Commissioner Denker commented on the following:• Member leaving the Planning Commission• Received 4 applications for the three available positions• Commission thanked Commissioner Ender for all of her hard work and time that she has put into Planning Commission and the joint Planning Board

The advertisement was sent to the City's official paper, North Crow River News to be published 3 times and also on the City's website. Applications were due by noon on Thursday, Oct. 31st. We received 4 applications.

Each applicant introduced themselves and stated why they are interested in serving on the Planning Commission. They also answered a few questions that were asked by the Planning Commission.

The applicants were thanked for their time and desire to serve on the Planning Commission.

After the interviews, the Planning Commission took a ballot vote voting for two seated members and one alternate member. Deputy Clerk Splett tallied the votes with the applicants receiving the most votes for the seated positions being Bruce Gorecki and Kevin Jullie; and Bernie Terhaar for the alternate position. .

Commissioner Denker moved, Commissioner Martin seconded a motion to recommend that Bruce Gorecki and Kevin Jullie be appointed to the open seated positions of the Planning Commission and Bernie Terhaar be appointed to the open alternate position.